Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 165132 2012-03-07	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. NELLIE R. APOLONIO BRION, J.
We affirmed and consistently applied this ruling in the cases of Gemma P. Cabalit v. Commission on Audit-Region VII,[41] Office of the Ombudsman v. Masing,[42] Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals,[43] Office of the Ombudsman v. Laja,[44] Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals,[45] Office of the Ombudsman v. Lucero,[46] and Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals.[47]
	GR No. 183507 2010-02-24	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. ASTERIA E. CRUZABRA CARPIO MORALES, J.
In the present case, petitioner's Order of May 18, 2004 finding respondent administratively liable for neglect of duty, which "implies the failure to give proper attention to a task expected of an employee arising from either carelessness or indifference,"[8] was adequately established by substantial evidence.
	GR No. 160596 2009-03-20	REPUBLIC v. IGNACIO BAJAO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
have long been resolved by the Court in Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals and Armilla,[22] Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals and Santos,[23] and Herrera v. Bohol.[24]
	GR No. 175573 2008-09-11	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. JOEL S. SAMANIEGO CORONA, J.
SEC. 13. Mandate. - The Ombudsman and his deputies, as protectors of the people, shall act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against officers or employees of the Government, or of any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations, and enforce their administrative, civil and criminal liability in every case where the evidence warrants in order to promote efficient service by the Government to the people. To aid the Ombudsman in carrying out its tasks, it was vested with disciplinary authority over government officials.[15] The scope of this authority was discussed in Office of the Ombudsman v. CA:[16]
	GR No. 175573 2008-09-11	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. JOEL S. SAMANIEGO CORONA, J.
Scandinavian countries.[22] Its original and classic notion was that of an independent and politically neutral office which merely received and processed the people's complaints against corrupt and abusive government personnel.[23] The Philippine Ombudsman deviated from the classic model. It retained the characteristic independence and political neutrality but the range of its functions and powers was enlarged.
	GR No. 151121 2008-07-21	RUBEN S. GALERO v. CA NACHURA, J.
THE FINDINGS OF THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AS TO THE VALIDITY OF PETITIONERS' DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE ARE CONTRADICTED BY THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD.[18] Before we rule on these assigned errors, we note that petitioner belatedly questioned in his Reply[19] the scope of the Ombudsman's power and authority to dismiss government employees. If only to erase doubts as to the Ombudsman's power to impose the penalty of dismissal, we would like to stress the well-settled principle laid down in the two Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals[20] cases and in Estarija v. Ranada.[21]